Introduction to the Collegium System in Indian law:
The collegium system, established by judicial pronouncements, has significantly shaped the appointment and transfer of judges in India. This unique mechanism, which operates within the judiciary, has been a subject of debate and scrutiny. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the system, its evolution, functioning, criticisms, and the recent reforms associated with it in Indian law.
Evolution of the Collegium System:
1.1 Early Appointment Process:
Initially, the President of India, in consultation with the Chief Justice, appointed judges to the higher judiciary. However, concerns about executive interference and political influences prompted the judiciary to seek a more independent method of appointment.
1.2 The Three-Judge Bench Ruling:
In the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), a three-judge bench introduced the collegium system. It held that judges’ appointments would be made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a collegium comprising the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
Functioning of the Collegium System:
2.1 Appointment and Transfer Process:
Under the system, the CJI and the collegium discuss and recommend candidates for appointment or transfer. The recommendations are forwarded to the President of India for approval, as per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) guidelines.
2.2 Criteria for Selection:
The system emphasizes factors such as merit, integrity, seniority, and diverse representation while considering candidates for judicial appointments. The system deliberates on the qualifications, competence, and suitability of candidates based on available information, including their track record.
2.3 Role of the Executive:
Although the system grants significant authority to the judiciary, the President of India’s approval is required for the appointments and transfers recommended by the collegium. The President may seek further clarification from the collegium but is bound by the collegium’s recommendations
Also read: Preventive Detention Laws
Criticisms of the System:
3.1 Lack of Transparency:
Critics argue that the system lacks transparency, as the decision-making process occurs behind closed doors without a structured framework for evaluation or disclosure of reasons for selection or rejection.
3.2 Absence of Accountability:
Another criticism is that the system lacks accountability, as there is no external oversight or checks and balances to ensure that appointments are made purely on merit and without favoritism.
3.3 Lack of Diversity:
The system has also faced criticism for not adequately addressing the need for diversity in the judiciary, including representation of women, marginalized communities, and diverse legal backgrounds.
Recent Reforms and Developments:
4.1 National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC):
To address the concerns regarding lack of transparency and accountability, the Parliament of India passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act in 2014. However, in a subsequent constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional, upholding the primacy of the collegium system.
4.2 Transparency and Accountability Measures:
In response to the criticisms, the Supreme Court has taken steps to enhance transparency by publishing collegium resolutions on its official website and considering the feasibility of establishing a permanent secretariat for the collegium.
Conclusion:
The system has played a pivotal role in ensuring the independence of the judiciary in India. While it has faced criticism for its lack of transparency and accountability, recent efforts to enhance transparency and the ongoing discourse on reform indicate a commitment to addressing these concerns. As the Indian legal system evolves, the system remains a subject of scrutiny and debate, balancing the need for judicial independence with the imperative of a transparent and accountable judiciary.
The ongoing debates and discussions surrounding the collegium system underscore the need for continuous evaluation and reforms to strike a balance between judicial independence and accountability, representation, and efficiency. It is through such reforms that the Indian judiciary can further strengthen its role as a pillar of democracy and ensure justice for all.
